Letters to the editor -- Dec. 7, 2012

Friday

Dec 7, 2012 at 12:01 AM

Commenting on The Record's Nov. 25, 26 and 27 editions, I find it not amusing at all that The Record is still whining about the election results a week later, hence its search for articles via The Association Press that demean the reasons why Obama won.

Commenting on The Record's Nov. 25, 26 and 27 editions, I find it not amusing at all that The Record is still whining about the election results a week later, hence its search for articles via The Association Press that demean the reasons why Obama won.

Example: "Men the ultimate swing voter bloc until now." And apologizing again for Romney's gaffs and goofs. Just saying ... get over it and cooperate, like with Anthony Silva, for instance.

And why on Nov. 27 did you print a Bill Berryhill picture next to Cathleen Galgiani like he was still running?

OK, so I still buy a paper, just because I can still think and decipher the obvious.

Dawn Hubbard

Stockton

» NOTE: The Record endorsed President Obama's re-election. The Galgiani-Berryhill story of Nov. 27 concerned not only Sen.-elect Galgiani's meetings with the state Senate's leadership, but also about the fact that Bill Berryhill at that point had not conceded the election.

I read with interest Ruben Navarrette's Nov. 23 column, "Mitt Romney is now the nation's whiner-in-chief," scolding Romney's post-election explanation of his loss to his wealthy donors (Obama's "gifts" to Latinos, blacks, young women, and students were responsible).

While Navarrette fairly pointed out that Republicans also hand out "gifts" when in power - tax cuts, increased defense spending, prescription drug benefits, etc. - he blamed Romney for a lack of empathy about Latinos who voted overwhelmingly for Obama. He also took Romney to task for remarks to his wealthy backers in Boca Raton, Fla., about the "47 percent" who want something for nothing (the "takers" versus the "creators").

But is Romney really to blame? Didn't he just give voice and reflect the views of the constituency that supported and funded him? In a recent viewer poll conducted on Fox's "The O'Reilly Show," 95 percent thought Romney was speaking the truth and was not wrong in saying many voters supported the president because of entitlements.

Remember the Republican primary debate in South Carolina when boos accompanied references to Romney's Mexican heritage but cheers accompanied his declaration that he would veto the Dream Act.

If the GOP's backers or Fox News commentators didn't support the "makers vs. takers" philosophy or thought he was taking the wrong tack regarding minorities and Latinos, surely they would have communicated that to Romney.

We Republicans can blame the messenger, Romney, or we can think about our message. If the message was so feckless why are we now realizing the emperor had no clothes? Shame on Romney? I don't think so.

Craig Holmes

Stockton

The argument going on in Washington concerns whether to extend the "Bush tax cuts" for the upper 2 percent of wealthy people. If implemented, the proposed tax increase on them would run our government for eight days, making it just a Band-Aid fix.

Of all people, Warren Buffett advocates raising taxes on the wealthy. He pays just 17.4 percent on his after his battery of lawyers take deductions to keep him from paying more, while his secretary pays 35.8 percent in taxes.

I suggest Buffett, with his expendable billions, start more businesses, thus creating jobs which in turn would pay taxes while at the same time creating products and increasing the wealth of the United States.

The president is stirring up the public with his class warfare argument rather than working out a compromise in Washington. There comes a time for him to roll up his sleeves and get some work done rather than just making speeches that divide us as a nation.